Letters to the Editor Opinion
Letter to the Editor | Is PenMet a responsible tax-supported entity?
You may remember that PenMet told us when the Board adopted the DeMolay Master Plan, that it’s main focus was to provide ADA access to the DeMolay Sandspit. They brought two ladies, one a world-class wheelchair basketball player and one a mother of two children who can’t carry both of her children to the Sandspit (both very impressive ladies), to support their project.
This project could cost upwards of $3,000,000 and could take two to three years to complete with an anticipated delayed start to the actual work. You may also remember that I wrote a Letter to the Editor providing an alternative that would cost a few thousand dollars and that could be implemented immediately to get the basketball player and the two small children to the Sandspit now. That Letter was supported by another Park District resident who wrote her own Letter To The Editor.
This is just a short update: PenMet is moving ahead to substantially alter the DeMolay Sandspit which PenMet itself has called a Nature Preserve. Their plan also will easily cost seven figures and will probably also close the Sandspit for at least a few months while construction (destruction?) is going on.
PenMet, to the best of my knowledge, has never responded to and probably has never even considered the alternatives described in the two Letters To The Editor. Placing one golf cart type vehicle on the property with a PenMet employee onsite would be cost effective (4 or 5 figures rather than 7 figures), would completely eliminate any closure of the Sandspit, could be done in days (allowing the basketball player and the mother immediate access), and would also eliminate extremely costly outside security guards that PenMet is currently spending thousands on. Interesting to note that state documents drafted at the time of purchase mention that PenMet is to keep the Sandspit open to the public. Does closing the Sandspit for months meet that obligation? PenMet has now publicly taken the position that the Sandspit is already “developed” allowing for further development. I’ve addressed this issue in a prior Letter To The Editor. We’ll see if the state and the county agree.
Since the money PenMet is spending comes, in very large part, from us, don’t you think they have some responsibility to explain to us why they’ve ignored the alternatives that have been proposed? Don’t you think they owe us an explanation? Maybe they could hold a public meeting at which they can explain why they have ignored what appears to be an excellent solution to the issues raised by the basketball player and the mom? And maybe they could explain why they are choosing to spend seven figures rather than four?
In closing, I’ve noticed PenMet finally demolished the blockhouse. They were supposed to do that when they purchased the property in 2010 — is this timely compliance? I did find a 2015 state report that excused PenMet from demolishing the blockhouse with the explanation that it was being used as a bathroom. Maybe it was back in the day, but it hasn’t been used for years as a bathroom as the existence of the porta potty attests and as any visitor to the Sandspit already knows.
PenMet: While you ignored much of the input you received from your pointless public meetings (which was highly predictable), I would like you to please explain to us why the alternatives presented to you by two park district residents were not considered as viable alternatives? Explain why you want spend millions when thousands will do even better and save you money going forward? Why don’t you want the basketball player and the mom to have access to the Sandspit today?
One final comment: I was at the Sandspit yesterday and saw the big sign that said Park Attendant On Duty. There was no Park Attendant that I could find. I hope you’re getting what you’re paying so much for.
Craig McLaughlin
Fox Island
Gig Harbor Now accepts signed letters to the editor of 800 or fewer words from area residents. Submit them to [email protected].
Gig Harbor Now accepts signed letters to the editor of up to about 800 words. Submit them on the Contact form by selecting “Letter to the Editor” from the Purpose dropdown.